Global Ethics Corner: Kenyan Election Controversy

The last time Kenya held a presidential election, in 2007, the aftermath saw months of violence in which over 1,000 people were killed. Kenyans went to the polls again in March 2013, and, although there was much less violence this time, the results are still shrouded in controversy.

Despite allegations of voter fraud and just barely escaping a runoff, Uhuru Kenyatta was inaugurated as Kenya’s new president on April 9. Kenyatta, the son of Kenya’s founding father Jomo Kenyatta, was formerly deputy prime minister and is one of Kenya’s richest men.

He has also been accused of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court, charged with organizing some of the violence connected to the 2007 elections. Kenyatta vehemently denies this and there is little direct evidence. But he is due to stand trial in The Hague this July.

Ironically, the ICC charges may have actually worked in Kenyatta’s favor during his campaign. To date, the ICC has only indicted Africans and has only opened investigations in African states. So, by electing Kenyatta, some argue that Kenyans are making a pointed statement against Western institutions.

Despite this, analysts think that the official Western reaction to Kenyatta’s presidency will be muted as Kenya is too important to be left isolated. It is a hub for the aid community, one of Africa’s richest states, and a vital ally in the fight against terrorism. Before the election, the U.S. vaguely warned of "consequences" if Kenyatta were to win, but this has not been backed up. Secretary of State John Kerry said that the U.S. remains a "strong friend" of Kenya and the U.S. ambassador attended the inauguration ceremony.

What do you think? Should Kenya face repercussions for electing someone under ICC indictment for crimes against humanity? Or should the West treat Kenyatta like any other legally elected president?